PensFanInDC wrote:Its interesting that some people aren't able to distinct between doing what is 'right' and doing what is 'legal'. What GZ did (following Martin) was, in my opinion, not right. It was, however, perfectly legal. Trials work in legality, not morality. What's more is that I see a lot of people wanting a conviction based on said morality but are some of the first to chime in when a politician wants to legislate morality.

count2infinity wrote:But that isn't illegal MWB, it doesn't make him guilty of murder. Was the killing of TM murder? Possibly, but the state has not done enough to prove that. Based on the testimony and evidence presented in this case, there's little doubt in my mind that he will get a not guilty verdict. Or at least I would vote not guilty. He very well may have been the aggressor. He very well may have thrown the first punch. He very well may have pinned TM to the ground and shot him in cold blood. But that's not what has been presented in this case. The numerous witnesses and accounts of the happenings that night do not indicate murder. I'm not even sure the evidence is enough for manslaughter. Even though I do believe he is guilty of manslaughter, I don't think the state has proved that.

I agree completely. I wasn't posting that to say that I think he should be found guilty because he got out of the car. I just think he made a bad decision to get out of the car.

PensFanInDC wrote:Its interesting that some people aren't able to distinct between doing what is 'right' and doing what is 'legal'. What GZ did (following Martin) was, in my opinion, not right. It was, however, perfectly legal. Trials work in legality, not morality. What's more is that I see a lot of people wanting a conviction based on said morality but are some of the first to chime in when a politician wants to legislate morality.

I don't believe your making an apt comparison here.

The comparison was an aside and I believe it certainly is apt. There are people I am seeing and hearing that want a man convicted based on their morals and NOT the law. Yet when a politician wants to use his/her morals in legislating law it becomes a problem for them. The reason it is apt is when morality is put forth in legislation the opponents say that personal morality has no place in law, yet, in this case, they are using their own morality to place guilt on the defendant.

From what I understand what is "right" and what is "wrong" was being discussed in part. It was "wrong" for GZ to get out of the car and follow Martin. It would have been "right" for him to stay in the car and wait for the police. His "wrong" decision lead to Martin's death and therefore he is guilty of some crime. That's what I thought was being talked about at least in some part.

From what I understand what is "right" and what is "wrong" was being discussed in part. It was "wrong" for GZ to get out of the car and follow Martin. It would have been "right" for him to stay in the car and wait for the police. His "wrong" decision lead to Martin's death and therefore he is guilty of some crime. That's what I thought was being talked about at least in some part.

Ok. but this right/wrong discussion has very little connection with the idea of legislating morality.

columbia wrote:You're comparing judging the actions of others to prescribing the actions of others?

Grrrr,,,

No. I am pointing out that it's hypocritical to be okay with convicting a person of a crime solely based on one's morals and not be okay with someone legislating based on their morals. It's okay to impose YOUR morals on one person at a time but not everyone at the same time?

columbia wrote:You're comparing judging the actions of others to prescribing the actions of others?

Grrrr,,,

No. I am pointing out that it's hypocritical to be okay with convicting a person of a crime solely based on one's morals and not be okay with someone legislating based on their morals. It's okay to impose YOUR morals on one person at a time but not everyone at the same time?

I really don't see an equivalency between "it's wrong to kill another person" and "you shouldn't be treated as an equal member of society, because you happen to like other dudes."

columbia wrote:You're comparing judging the actions of others to prescribing the actions of others?

Grrrr,,,

No. I am pointing out that it's hypocritical to be okay with convicting a person of a crime solely based on one's morals and not be okay with someone legislating based on their morals. It's okay to impose YOUR morals on one person at a time but not everyone at the same time?

I really don't see an equivalency between "it's wrong to kill another person" and "you shouldn't be treated as an equal member of society, because you happen to like other dudes."

So it's case by case basis then? We can use our morals in a court of law when we feel like it but never in legislation? I don't think, in our society, they should be used in EITHER place. Law is law.

columbia wrote:You're comparing judging the actions of others to prescribing the actions of others?

Grrrr,,,

No. I am pointing out that it's hypocritical to be okay with convicting a person of a crime solely based on one's morals and not be okay with someone legislating based on their morals. It's okay to impose YOUR morals on one person at a time but not everyone at the same time?

I really don't see an equivalency between "it's wrong to kill another person" and "you shouldn't be treated as an equal member of society, because you happen to like other dudes."

So it's case by case basis then? We can use our morals in a court of law when we feel like it but never in legislation? I don't think, in our society, they should be used in EITHER place. Law is law.

I don't understand why its wrong to keep a close eye on someone who doesn't look like they belong in your neighborhood and check out what they are up to. If one of my neighbors saw someone looking into one of my cars and going car to car I would want them to keep an eye on them and watch where they go until police get there.

Of course I am not advocating any physical altercation or even confronting anyone, just be a good witness for the police when they arrive.

With the injuries that Zimmerman had, I don't doubt for a second he was in fear for his life when he fired that single shot. What led up to that is only speculation and we will never know for sure who is telling the truth. I will say the prosecution didn't even come close to proving anything beyond a reasonable doubt. They know this too, which is why they are throwing stones at the end of the trial like the child abuse thing and trying to get manslaughter charges when they spent the entire trial without mentioning it.

theres a big difference between thinking someone might be guilty of a crime because he killed someone and i think its wrong, and someone making it illegal to bang dudes because it might make god mad and send me to hell.

Was there any evidence presented that TM is the one that escalated this from a verbal to a physical confrontation?I don't mean GZ statements or injuries or TM was on top. The one witness that supposedly saw the whole thing to my knowledge never testified "I saw TM punch GZ".

If I see something suspicious, then sure... I'll keep an eye out. I think what a lot of people have an issue with is the fact that he chased after TM after he ran. That's something that I likely would not have done.